RESUMO
BACKGROUND: We compared the wave amplitude of visually evoked potential (VEP) between patients with esotropic and anisometropic amblyopic eyes and a normal group. METHODS: The wave amplitude of VEP was documented in 2 groups of persons with amblyopia (15 with esotropia and 28 with anisometropia) and 1 group of individuals with normal visual acuity (n, 15). The amplitude of P100 was recorded monocularly with different spatial frequencies. RESULTS: Our statistical analysis revealed that the wave amplitude in the 2 groups with amblyopia was significantly decreased compared to that in the normal group (P<0.001). There was a significant difference regarding the amplitude in high spatial frequencies in both high- and low-contrast conditions between the groups with esotropia and anisometropia and the normal group (P<0.001). There were also significant differences in large check-size stimuli and low-contrast condition between the amblyopic groups with esotropia and anisometropia and the normal group (P=0.013 and P=0.044, respectively). In large check-size stimuli and high-contrast condition, a significant difference was indicated only in the comparison between the esotropic amblyopic eyes and the normal eyes (P=0.036). CONCLUSION: The wave amplitude parameter of VEP was influenced by both types of amblyopia, but it seems that this parameter was more sensitive to esotropic amblyopia than anisometropic amblyopia. This outcome may reflect a non-parallel pattern of cortical responses in the comparison of the 2 types of amblyopia with each other and with the control group, which may be beneficial for the diagnosis and treatment of amblyopia.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate cortical activity using pattern visual evoked potentials (PVEPs) in patients with mild and moderate amblyopia (esotropic and anisometropic). METHODS: PVEP was recorded in 43 unilateral amblyopic patients, including 15 esotropic (ET) and 28 anisometropic (AM) patients, selected from three different medical centers in the city of Shiraz, Iran and compared to that obtained from 15 age and sex matched normal subjects who served as controls. Visual acuity (VA) in amblyopic eyes was equal to or less than 0.7 LogMAR. The latency of P100 was recorded monocularly using two check sizes of 15 and 60 min of arcs at two different levels of contrasts (30% and 100%). RESULTS: P100 latency in amblyopic eyes was significantly increased compared to the normal group (P < 0.001). There was a significant difference (P < 0.001) in P100 latency in anisometropic and esotropic amblyopic eyes as compared to normal subjects, using high spatial frequency and with both levels of contrast. A significant difference was observed with large check sizes and high contrast between anisometropic amblyopic and normal eyes (P = 0.03). However, there was no significant difference between these two groups and the control group with other stimuli. CONCLUSION: The neural response based on p100 latency in PVEP was different between amblyopic groups and normal subjects. PVEP may be valuable for diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of amblyopia.